The Relationship Betvveen Achievement Goal Orientation, Perceptions o f
Collaboration, Attitudes towards Group Work and GPA in 3D Educational
Software Development Process
3 Boyutlu Eğitim Yazılım ı Geliştirme Sürecinde Başarma Amacı Yönelimleri,
İşbirliğine Yönelik Algılar, Takım Çalışmasına Karşı Tutumlar ve Not Ortalaması
Arasındaki İlişkiler
Zahide Yıldırım
Middle East Technical University
Abstract
This study investigates students’ achievement goal orientation in relation to their attitudes towards group work and their perceptions of group members’ collaborative behaviors in 3D educational software development process. A total of 48 (33 males and 15 females) 41*1 year Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department students taking Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Software course at Middle East Technical University in the Spring term of the year 2003 formed the sample of this study. The study lasted 14 vveeks. During this period, the students worked in-groups and developed a 3D leaming environment by using the rapid prolotyping approach and Active World. 3.3-. At the end of the semester, a four-part survey questionnaire was given to students to collect data on background, achievement goal orientations, attitudes toward group work, and the students’ perceptions of their group members’ collaborative behaviors. The data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. The correlation analysis showed no signifıcant relationship betvveen attitudes towards group work and achievement goal orientation, hovvever, attitudes toward group work predicts how subjects perceive their team members’ collaboration with regard to their contribution to the task, discussing and listening, and team functioning behaviors. Signifıcant correlation was found between collaboration in contribution to the task, discussing and listening, and team functioning behaviors. The results indicated that there was a signifıcant relationship between mastery and ego orientations, and a negative relationship between Grade Point Average (GPA) and work-avoidant orientation. Finally, males were found to be signifıcantly more vvork-avoidant than females.
Keywords: Project-based learning, Collaboration, Achievement goal orientations.
Öz
Bu araştırmanın amacı 3 boyutlu eğitim yazılımı geliştirme sürecinde öğrencilerin başarma amacı yönelimleri, takım çalışmasına karşı tutumları ile takım akadaşlannın işbirliği davranışlarına yönelik algılan arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Araştırmaya Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümu’nden 2003 yılı bahar döneminde Eğitim Yazılımı Tasarlama, Geliştirme ve Değerlendirme dersine katılan 33 erkek ve 15 bayan olmak üzere toplam 48 öğrenci katılmıştır. Araştırma 14 hafta sürmüştür. Araştırma süresince öğlenciler takımlar halinde çalışmışlar ve Active World 3.3 yazılımını kullanarak hızlı ilk örnekleme yaklaşımı ile 3 boyutlu öğrenme ortamı geliştirmişlerdir. Çalışmanın sonunda öğrencilerin demografik özellikleri, başarma amacı yönelimleri, takım çalışmasına karşı tutundan ve takım akadaşlannın işbirliği davranışlanna yönelik algılan hakkında bilgi toplamak amacıyla dört bölümden oluşan bir anket uygulanmıştır. Veriler betimleyici ve tahmine yönelik istatistiki yöntemlerle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular öğrencilerin başarma amacı yönelimleri ve takım çalışmasına karşı tutumlan arasında bir ilişki olmadığını, ancak öğrencilerin takım çalışmasına karşı tutumlan ile takım arkadaşlannın işbirliği davranışlanna yönelik algılan arasında anlamlı düzeyde bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin takım arkadaşlannın işbirliği davranışlanna yönelik algılanndan katkıda bulunma, tartışma ve dinleme, ve takım işleyişine yönelik kalkılan arasında, tam öğrenme ve benlik yönelimleri arasında anlamlı düzeyde olumlu ilişki bulunurken genel not ortalaması ile çalışmaktan kaçınma yönelimi arasında anlamlı düzeyde negatif bir ilişki olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Son olarak erkek öğrencilerin çalışmaktan kaçınma yönelimlerinin kız öğrencilerden anlamlı düzeyde daha fazla olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Proje tabanlı öğrenme, İşbirliği, Başarma amacı yönelimleri.
Assist. Prof. Dr. Zahide Yıldırım, METU, Faculty of Education, E-mail: zahidey@metu.edu.tr
Introductıon
Certain foundations give shape to the process of designing and developing instructional software. Alessi and Trollip (2001) define these foundations as standards, ongoing evaluation and project management. The third one, project management, should penetrate the entire project with regard to good management of the tasks, resources, money, and time. From the start, it is important that a project is under tight control with regard to the stated issues. To make it possible, an instructional softvvare development project requires “a team of talented individuals to work tovvards a common goal” (Alessi & Trollip, 2001, p. 530). While working on the project, ali students need to be competent in undertaking their own work in relation to other team members, and also in accordance with specifıed project goals. During this process, the social skills of the team members are important to facilitate cooperation, resolve conflicts, communicate vvith others, set goals and make plans for the success of the project (Viktorsson & Ritzen, 2005).
Since the instructional softvvare development process in real life requires strict project management and team- work, “instructional softvvare design, development and evaluation” studied at university level can be leamed better through a project-based collaborative learning experience. According to Rooney (1996), “project- based means student centered, hands-on, active learning, and retention of knovvledge” (p.3). She indicates that in the project-based learning process, students are responsible for the planning and execution of a curriculum-based project. In such an environment, students are provided vvith opportunities to experience and re-experience course-related concepts in an authentic context, to become actively involved in the learning process, and to enrich their understanding of the materials and ideas (Solomon, 2003). According to Shanley (1999), project-based learning is a tool that “empovvers children to understand exactly vvhat it is they are learning” (p. 2). It is a challenging process, but vvhen vve think about the outcome, it is vvorth the effort. She stated that “project-based learning is much more relevant, and helps to build valuable critical thinking and problem-solving skills” (p. 2). Even though a project-based learning context provides opportunities
for effective learning, the individual characteristics of team members such as achievement goal orientation, attitudes tovvard group vvork and collaboration affect the project-based learning process and the outcomes of the process.
In reaching instructional goals, students’ perceptions of achievement, understanding of learning, study habits, and interactions vvith others in the teaching and learning environment are some of the determining factors. As Eggen and Kauchak (1999) State, one vvay of reaching instructional goals is “guiding students in setting their ovvn goals” (p. 417). This goal setting motivates students, and helps them act to reach the place they vvant to be in their learning processes (Woolfolk, 2004). Current literatüre indicates tvvo independent types of goal orientation, performance goals and learning goals (i.e., mastery goals) (Breland & Donovan, 2005). While guiding students, the distinction betvveen performance oriented and learning oriented goals is important. Eggen & Kauchak (1999) define the performance goal as a “focus on demonstrating high ability and avoiding failure. In a performance orientation, learning isn’t vievved as a goal in itself, but rather as a means to end, such as a high-test score or good grade” (p. 418). Performance-oriented leamers are motivated to shovv their task competency to avoid negative judgments (Breland & Donovan, 2005), and to outperform others (Bong, 2004). Those types of learners tend to be motivated extrinsically most of the time (Woolfolk, 2004). Hovvever, some learners are not vvilling to learn, they avoid vvork, and vvithout expending much effort, they try to finish the given tasks and activities as fast as possible. Those leamers can be categorized as vvork- avoidant (VVooklfolk, 2004).
Learning goals, on the other hand, focus on the challenge and mastery of a task (Pintrich & G arda, 1991 & Stipek, 1996, cited in Eggen & Kauchak 1999), and learning goal oriented students learn the subject to improve their competencies (Bong, 2004). “Learning goals lead to task orientation, in vvhich students focus on understanding and don’t vvorry about failure or comparisons vvith others” (Eggen & Kauchak, 1999, p. 418). Learning goal oriented learners strive to master something nevv or to improve their competencies in the subject to be leamed (Breland & Donovan, 2005). Those
learners tend to look for challenges, and continue even when they are faced with difficulties (Dupeyrat & Marine, 2005; Woolfolk, 2004). Literatüre indicates a positive relationship betvveen mastery goals and productive performance behaviors (Giota, 2002).
Another issue which should be considered to ensure the success of software development and_project-based learning is effective collaboration among the project team members. Communication and collaboration among team members are essential factors in the softvvare development process. (Hazzan & Tomayko, 2005). According to Alessi and Trollip (2001), collaborative learning requires an “environment in which learners work on a shared project or goal” (p. 34). Similarly, Rosca (2005) argues that collaborative learning involves social skills, positive interdependence, group indulgence, individual accountability, and interaction.
In a collaborative process, students work together to achieve goals or to finish a project; they learn from each other; they express their own ideas and understanding to help others understand them; they develop an understanding of other perspectives and views as the main advantages of collaborative learning. “The group process naturally produces a level of cognitive conflict that challenges the personal understanding of group members, and encourages more active self-regulated learning”(Grabe&Grabe, 2001, p.71). Additionally, collaborative learning provides students with an environment similar to vvork-place (Hovvard, 2004).
Although they have many strengths, collaborative learning activities are difficult to organize. As Alessi & Trollip (2001) and Grabe & Grabe (2001) State, the main disadvantage of collaborative learning is that some learners may benefit more than others in such an environment. To ensure ali the learners benefit from a collaborative learning experience in an optimum way, activities should be planned, and the type of grouping from one subject or task to another should be defined well. In short, a purposeful structure is necessary in making collaboration effective (Grabe & Grabe, 2001).
Learning the content of instructional softvvare design and development requires a project-based collaborative learning setting in which students learn from each other, reflect their own and team members’ ideas, to
experience group interdependence as a main ingredient in this process. Hovvevcr, learners’ perceptions of achievement goal orientation, and how they see group work and collaboration may affect the success of this process. From this perspective, it is important to investigate the relationship between goal orientation, attitudes toward group work and collaborative behaviors of students in a project-based softvvare development process. Therefore, this study aims to find out if there are relationships betvveen goal orientation profiles, group vvork attitudes, group members’ perceived collaborative behaviors and GPA in an instructional softvvare design and development process.
The specific research questions that guided this study vvere the follovving: (l)W hat are the participants’ achievement goal orientations, attitudes tovvard group vvork and perception of their group m embers’ performances in terms of effective collaborative behaviors? (2) Is there a significant difference betvveen male and female students’ achievement goal orientations, attitudes tovvard group vvork and effective collaborative behaviors? (3) Is there a significant relationship betvveen students’ achievement goal orientations, attitudes tovvard group vvork, perception of their group members’ performance in terms of effective collaborative behaviors and GPA?
Investigating the relationship betvveen achievement goal orientations, attitudes tovvard group vvork, and students’ perceptions of group members’ collaborative behaviors is important from several perspectives. First of ali, an educational softvvare development process requires effective teamvvork and project management. Since each team member might have a different goal orientation, attitude tovvards group vvork and contributions to the group tasks, it vvould be valuable to examine the relationships among them in an educational softvvare development process. The findings of this study may provide valuable information for educational softvvare development practitioners in forming the development team so that they may benefit more from this process. Additionally, this study may offer insights to the instructors in order that they may be able to help students benefit more from a course on instructional softvvare development.
Method
A case study design was used to examine participants’ achievement goal orientations, attitudes toward group work, students’ perceptions of their group members’ collaborative behaviors, and the relationships among these variables. For this purpose, a speciflc undergraduate course, “Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Software,” was selected, and the students taking the course formed the sample of the study. A survey design was used to collect the related data. Below the detailed description of the study subjects, the procedures, the data collection and analysis are presen ted.
Subjects o f the Study
The fourth year Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department students who took the Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Softvvare Course at Middle East Technical University in Turkey formed the sample of this study. A total of 56 students were enrolled on the course (sections one 27, and two 29), but a total of 48 (33 males and 15 females) subjects volunteered to participate in the study. 14 project groups were formed based on gender and Cumulative Grade Points Average. Students were assigned to the project groups randomly considering gender and achievement (high, average and low achievers) clusters to make sure that students from both genders and different achievement levels were represented in the project teams. The Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Softvvare course vvas regarded as their graduation course, and they vvere expected to apply what they had leamed in previous courses during their undergraduate period to their projects in this course. Procedures o f the Study
The study lasted 14 weeks (the spring term of 2003). During this period, the group members worked together and developed three-dimensional (3D) instructional softvvare by using the rapid prototyping approach. At the beginning of the semester, the students vvere informed that as the course project they vvere supposed to develop a 3D learning environment by follovving the rapid prototyping approach. Tvvo instructors gave the course involving three theoretical and tvvo practice hours in tvvo
sections. In both sections the same content vvas covered and the same instructional materials and methods vvere used.
The course consisted of tvvo parts. During the theoretical component of the first part (the first six vveeks), students vvere provided vvith the basics in the educational softvvare development field. In the first six vveeks of the course, the students vvere taught the theoretical basics of the educational softvvare development process on “learning principles and approaches, general features of educational softvvare, games and simulations” (Alessi & Trollip, 2001), the Systems Approach to instructional Design (ADDIE Model) (Dick & Carey, 1996), and the Rapid Prototyping Model (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990) repetition of developing, testing and correcting process until producing the final product. During this period, an expert from a private educational softvvare development company vvas also invited, and he explained hovv educational softvvare development procedures took place in real life settings. During the practice hours of the first part, the students played vvith three educational games and vvrote a reflective journal individually to compare them in terms of their educational aspects. For the remaining time they examined the characteristics of the 3D environment development softvvare (Active World 3.3”) vvhich they did not knovv then and used in their projects. At the same time they, as group members, brainstormed their project ideas, vvhich needed to be in line vvith the course framevvork.
In the second part of the course (the remaining eight vveeks), the students focused on their projects. They vvorked on the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation phases of the educational softvvare development process, and vvrote reports related to each phase. During this period each group vvas assigned a specific vveekly time period for consultation, and the group members consulted their instructors on their projects and reports. At the end of each consultation period, each group received feedback related to their projects (paper-based prototype, computer-based prototype, the actual product and so on) and reports. They then modified their vvork in relation to the feedback they had received. This procedure vvas an iterative procedure, and until the final version of the
project, there were revisions. At the end of the semester, the groups presented their projects to their classmates, together with the documentation of their completed 3D learning environment, in order to share what they had done with others.
Data Collection and Analysis
A four-part survey questionnaire, the Achievement Goal Orientation and Collaboration Questionnaire, was developed to collect data on background variables, achievement goal orientation, attitudes toward group work and group members’ collaborative behaviors.
The achievement goal orientation part of the questionnaire included statements related to the three orientation subscales, mastery (which indicates learning goals and consists of 13 items), ego-social, and work- avoidant (vvhich indicate performance goals and consist of 13 and 8 items respectively). A five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 as low to 5 as high orientation) was used to differentiate orientations. The statements in this part of the questionnaire were adapted from a questionnaire (The Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire) originally developed by Somuncuoğlu & Yıldırım (1999). They carried out a pilot study with a group of 47 students in 1995 and found a .85 alpha score on mastery, a .83 alpha score on ego-social, and a .79 alpha score on vvork-avoidant scales.
The collaboration part of the questionnaire included two sections. The fırst section included the items adapted from The Effective Collaboration Rubric originally developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (İSTE). This section consisted of three subsections: contribution to group tasks and completion of personal tasks (5 items), discussion skills and active listening (4 items), and contribution to group evaluation, problem solving and team functioning (3 items). A four- point Likert-scale (ranging from 1 being the lovvest level of collaboration to 4 being the highest level of collaboration) was used. The second section aimed to measure attitudes tovvards group work and consisted of 12 Likert-type items (ranging from 1 indicating the lowest level to 5 indicating the highest level of agreement). The items in this section were also adapted from the Attitudes toward Group Work Questionnaire, developed by the International Society for Technology
in Education (İSTE). In this study, a .80 alpha score for the items on attitudes towards group work, and a .93 alpha score for items on effective collaboration were found.
The data gathered through the questionnaire were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. Firstly, a descriptive analysis of the items in the three scales in terms of means and percentages was carried out. Secondly, sub-scale scores were calculated for each category under the achievement goal orientation and collaboration scales. Then, the relationship betvveen achievement goal orientations, attitudes towards group work, and the effective collaboration rubric scores were analyzed through a correlation coefficient test. Finally, a t-test was performed to find out if there were any significant differences based on gender.
Rapicl Prototyping Model
In the 3D learning environment development process, the project groups used the rapid prototyping approach that was adapted to the educational software development field from the software engineering field by Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990). According to Lantz (cited in Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990), prototyping means “system development methodology based on building and using a model of a system for designing, implementing, testing and installing the system” (p. 35). Rapid Prototyping is repetition of the developing, testing and correcting processes until the production of the final product (Wideman, 2003). In this approach, after briefly describing the needs and objectives, research and development processes were conducted parallel to each other to create prototypes of the software. After testing, the developer may come up with the final product or not (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). During the progress of their group projects, the students wrote analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation reports in line with the rapid prototyping approach, and received weekly feedback from the course instructors. Parallel to the reports, they developed firstly paper-based, secondly computer-based and thirdly Active World based prototypes. They gathered feedback for their prototypes from the instructors, from their classmates, and from several other people involved in the project (teachers and students) and came up vvith the final product.
Active World. 3.3
The students in this study used Active World 3.3” to develop a 3D leaming environment. Access to the softvvare was provided from Indiana University in Indiana, the United States. The Active World interface consists of six main components: 3D Virtual World, Web, Chat, Tabs, Tool Bar and Menü Bar. The 3D Virtual World component allovvs users to travel in Virtual space; the Web component provides the knovvledge base for the subject area and browsing; the Chat component helps users converse with others in the system simultaneously; the Tuh component enables users to move from one Virtual world to another one. The Menü and Tool Burs help users build Virtual worlds and change preferences. The students in this study, who were fourth year Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department students at Middle East Technical University, were able to use Active World in the departments’ Computer laboratories and needed to connect to the Indiana University’s server through the Internet.
Limitations o f the Study
The small sample size was one of the limitations of the study. The number of the participants was limited to the number of fourth year students in the Computer and Instructional Technology Education Department and to the students who were volunteers for this study. Therefore, the results of the study cannot be generalized directly beyond the case study group. Another limitation arises from the type of softvvare used, and the way in vvhich it was used in the study. As indicated, Active
World 3.3” was used in this study. The space of the Virtual vvorld provided for each project group by Indiana University was limited, and connecting to Indiana University servers through the Internet was slovv. In addition, the students were using 3D development softvvare for the first time. Even though the students overcame the novelty of the development tool, limited Virtual space and slovv Internet access remained the main limitations of the project groups. Despite these limitations, this study provides a valuable contribution vvith regard to the relationship betvveen goal orientation profiles, group vvork attitudes and collaborative behaviors in the 3D instructional softvvare design and development process.
Results
Descriptive Results on Achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes toward Group Work and Ejfective
Collahoration Be ha viors
The descriptive results of the study are presented in Table 1. The results of the study shovved that the subjects are very close to mastery goal orientation (M=3.87), then ego-social (M=2.97), and the last vvork- avoidant (M=2.1) as a vvhole. The dominant orientation profiles among the students are mastery, and both mastery and ego-social orientations. The findings indicate that majority of the students focus on the challenge and mastery of the task as Eggen and Kauchak (1999) indicated.
Attitudes tovvard group vvork scores (M=3.56) shovved that the majority of the students agreed vvith the
Table 1.
Descriptive Results on Achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes tovvard Group Work and Collahoration Behaviors
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Mastery Orientation 48 2.75 5.00 3.87 .51
Ego-social (Performance 48 1.38 4.15 2.97 .71
Orientation)
Work-avoidant 48 1.00 3.75 2.10 .80
Group Work Attitude 46 2.17 4.67 3.56 .62
Task Collahoration 48 2.40 4.00 3.46 .43
Discussion/Listening 48 2.33 4.00 3.46 .43
Collahoration
Team Functioning 48 2.00 4.00 3.43 .46
statements. It can be concluded from this result that students have positive attitudes tovvards group work.
Students had similar scores on contribution to group tasks and completion of personal tasks (M=3.46); discussion skills and active listening (3.46); and contribution to the group evaluation, problem solving and team functioning (3.43) sub-scales of the collaboration rubric indicating that students perceived other group members as effective collaborators (4* level) in this process.
Differences in Achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes toward Group Work and Collaboration Behaviors by Gender
As presented in Table 2, the t-test results showed no significant differences between males’ and females’ attitudes tovvard group vvork, and perceptions of effective collaboration rubric. In relation to achievement goal orientation profiles, t-test results indicated similarly that there were no significant differences betvveen males and females regarding mastery orientation and ego- social orientation. However, there was a significant difference betvveen males and females in the vvork- avoidant profile indicating that males (M=2.26) are significantly more vvork-avoidant than females (M=1.75) (t=2,092, p<.05).
Relationship between Achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes towards Group Work, and Perceptions o f Collaboration Behaviors and GPA
The correlation results are presented in Table 3. Regarding the relationship betvveen attitudes tovvards group vvork and achievement goal orientations, the correlation analysis shovved no significant relationship. Hovvever, the results indicated a significant correlation betvveen attitudes tovvards group vvork and hovv subjects perceive their teammates’ collaboration in regard to discussion and active listening behaviors. In addition, the results pointed to a significant negative correlation betvveen vvork-avoidance orientation and students’ GPA (r:-.40; p<.05). When collaboration behaviors vvere taken into consideration, there vvas a significant correlation betvveen completion of/contribution to tasks (as a collaborative behavior) and discussion/active listening behaviors (r:.88;p<.05), betvveen completion of/contribution to tasks, collaboration and team functioning (r:.82;p<.05), and betvveen discussion/active listening and team functioning (r:.78;p<.05). In addition, the results shovved that there vvas a significant correlation betvveen mastery goal orientation and ego goal orientation of the students (r:.44;p<.05).
Table 2.
Differences in Achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes Toward Group Work and Collaboration Behaviors by Gender StZ
GENDER N Mean Deviation df t-value p-value
Group Work Attitude male 31 3.55 .60 44 -.080 .937
female 15 3.57 .67
Task Collaboration male 33 3.51 .40 46 1.392 .171
female 15 3.33 .47
Discussion/Listening male 33 3.50 .40 46 1.185 .242
Collaboration female 15 3.35 .48
Team Functioning male 33 3.47 .43 46 .856 .396
Collaboration female 15 3.35 .50
Mastery Orientation male 33 3.82 .51 46 -.982 .331
female 15 3.98 .50
Ego-social Orientation male 33 3.00 .73 46 .487 .624
female 15 2.90 .66
Work-avoidance male 33 2.26 .80 46 2.092* .042
Orientation female 15 1.75 .71
Table 3.
Relationships between achievement Goal Orientations, Attitudes toward Group Work, Effective Collaboration Behaviors and GPAs 8. Work-2 3 4 5 6 7 avoidance l.G P A (Grade Point Average Pearson r. -.171 -.232 -.278 -.061 .266 -.130 -.403** Sig. (2-tailed) N .255 .113 .056 .682 46 48 48 48 .068 48 .380 48 .004 48 2. Group Work Attitude Pearson r. .372 .438** .334 .058 -.037 .009 Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .002 .023 .701 .806 .955 N 46 46 46 46 46 46 3. Task Collaboration Pearson r. .883** .822** -.140 -.149 .329 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .342 .313 .023 N 48 48 48 48 48 4. Discussion/ Pearson r. .783** -.219 -.101 .305
Listening Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .136 .495 .035
Collaboration N 48 48 48 48
5. Team Pearson r. .000 -.169 .154
Functioning Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 .250 .295
Collaboration N 48 48 48 6. Mastery Orientation Pearson r. .437** -.230 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .116 N 48 48 7. Ego-social Orientation Pearson r. .190 Sig. (2-tailed) .196 N 48
** Correlatiorı is signijicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Conclusions and Discussion
The results of the study showed that the majority of participants are close to mastery orientation indicating that rather than thinking about failure or comparing themselves with other students, they focus on mastering the subject in hand (Eggen & Kauchak, 1999). In addition, to a certain extent, the students are ego-social. VVoolfolk (2004) stated that learners often possess mastery and performance oriented goals at the same time. According to Bong (2004), a person’s interaction with the context plays an important role in determining their goal orientation. In üne with Bong’s statement, since the students vvere soon to graduate, they most likely wanted to be ready for the job market, and they might have wanted to develop themselves in the field. They might think that their achievements and high performances should be rewarded and honored, and they probably see grading as a reward for their achievements. At the same time, high grades might be a reference for them to look for a good job in the job market in Turkey.
The majority of the students agreed with the statements in the group work attitude survey. This result is in line vvith Viktorsson & Ritzen’s (2005) studies. They mentioned that in addition to technical competence, there was a need for efficient planning, co- ordination and cooperation in order to design the product. This result was probably due to the fact that they were close to graduation and they realized that they were going to work vvith someone whom they did not knovv. Another reason can be the procedures follovved in other courses at the department. The majority of the courses in the department include at least one long-term group project. From the first year, they are accustomed to project-based learning. The positive attitude tovvards group work might be due to their previous experiences of group work. Additionally, the educational softvvare design development and evaluation process requires team-vvork and collaboration for the success of the softvvare, as Alessi and Trollip (2001) indicated. The
students in this study probably realized that the softvvare development process is a demanding process and it might not be possible to succeed in it through individual work alone. The students might thus have a positive attitude tovvards group work in this process due to this reason.
The students in the project groups knew each other but they had not worked together on previous projects. Nevertheless, the collaboration results shovved that the students in this study were effective collaborators. In their study, Şumuer, Kurşun, and Çağıltay (2006) found out that the most frequent characteristics searched for in the field of Instructional Design and Technology job announcements were “collaboration and vvorking in groups.” In this project-based learning process, as Grabe and Grabe (2001) stated, students worked together to achieve the group goals, they contributed to and completed tasks, actively participated in discussions, listened to others, and solved problems to function as a team. It can be said that running an “educational softvvare design, development, and evaluation course” in a project-based learning environment might help students become effective collaborators. This suggests that softvvare developers should be responsible for the progress of the project as a whole (Viktorsson & Ritzen, 2005), and these issues need to considered in designing instruction.
In this study, males vvere significantly more vvork- avoidant than the females. However, the literatüre does not provide clear results with regard to gender differences in goal orientation (Giota, 2002). The majority of the males in this study possessed higher levels of technical knovvledge than the females did. In order to improve their abilities and skills before graduation, females might have been trying to benefıt from this process as much as possible. It can be concluded from this result that the female students were more committed to the softvvare development project than the males vvere.. To be able to eliminate vvork- avoidance, and keep students on track in the course, students can be guided through the goal setting process, and close monitoring by the instructor can be offered.
Correlation analysis indicated that there vvas a negative relationship betvveen GPA and vvork-avoidance orientation shovving that low achievers do not focus on
mastery or learning the subject, but rather prefer to avoid these types of responsibilities. This result is consistent vvith Woolfolk’s (2004) statement indicating that vvork-avoidant leamers are not vvilling to learn, and that they try to avoid vvork.
Among achievement orientations, there is a significant correlation betvveen mastery orientation and ego-social orientation. Woolfolk (2004) mentions that learners often hold mastery and performance goals together, and these goals are associated vvith using active learning strategies and high self efficacy. As is indicated above, as a result of mastery, students might need extemal revvards as vvell. They might vvant praising and recognition for their learning as high grade and social approval as indicators of their achievement. Project-based learning requires effort demanding long term commitment. It vvould be motivating to promote students’ vvork and effort in this process.
Attitudes tovvards group vvork seem to be correlated to participation in discussion, active listening, and involvement in other collaborative behaviors. The more positive the attitude tovvards group vvork vvas, the more involvement vvith group discussions vvas observed. In addition, there are positive correlations betvveen the three subcategories of collaborative behaviors. This result indicates that these collaborative behaviors are interrelated, implying that to function efficiently as a group, the members should perform these collaborative behaviors. To be able to facilitate students’ collaborative behaviors, clear guidelines about hovv the group vvould proceed throughout the project-based learning process may be provided, and effective group vvork may be facilitated by the instructor. This might help them approach group vvork more positively, and result in more effective collaboration.
Even though the fmdings indicated no significant relationship betvveen goal orientation profiles, and attitudes tovvards group vvork and collaborative behaviors, appropriate goal setting, positive attitudes tovvards group vvork and effective collaborative behaviors are essential for the success of a softvvare development project. In order to have students benefit from such courses, the instructors may guide students or groups to set their goals, to plan their group vvork.
Wideman (2002) indicated that the personality profiles of team members are important for the success of the software development process. To be able to uncover the contributing factors such as different cognitive styles and learning styles to the collaboration process in project-based learning and to contribute to the field, additional research studies are needed. In further studies, this issue could be examined by using both quantitative and qualitative research methods, and by evaluating group products. Such research studies would provide insight to the softvvare development process, and enable students to gain from this process.
References
Alessi, S. M., Trollip, S., R. (200 1). Multimedia fo r learning: Methods and development |3 '^ ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetls: AUyn & Baton.
Bong, M., (2004). Academic motivation in self-effıcacy, lask value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. Journal o f Educatioııal Research. 97(6) (retrieved from EBSCO HOŞT research database).
Breland, B.T. & Donovan, J.J., (2005). The role State goal orientation in the goal establishment process. Human Performance, 18(1) 23- 53.
Dick. W,, Carev. 1... (1996) The systemcıtic design o f instruction (4th ed.) New York: HarpeıCollins College Publishers
Dupeyrat, C. & Marine, C., (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dvveck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3()( 1), 43-59.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D., (1999). Educational psychology (41*1 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hail.
Giota, J. (2002). Adolescents’ goal orientations and academic achievement: long-term relations and gender differences. Scandinaviatı Journal o f Educational Research. 46(4) 349-371. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C., (2001). Integrating technology fo r
meaningful learning (3rı* ed ). Boston: MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ha/.zan, O. & Tomayko, J.E., (2005). Reflection and abstruction in leaming softvvare engineering’s human aspects, IEEE, June 2005, 39-45.
Howard, R. M., (2004) Collaborative pedagogy. Retrieved 22 March, 2004 from http://wrt.syr.edu/670/collabped.html.
International Society for Technology in Education, USA, Student attitude scale Unvard group \vork. retreived from httn://www. iste, org/ in January, 2003
International Society for Technology in Education, USA, The effective collaboration rubric. Retrieved from http://w ww.iste.orı;/ in January 2003
Rooney, K. G., (1996). Project based learning: A hotv-to guide. Publication of Çenter for Human Resources, Brandies University. Rosca, D., (2005). Multidsiplinary and active/collaborative approach
in teaching requirements engineering. European Journal o f Engiııeering Education, 30(1), 121-128.
Shanley, M. K., (1999). Projects unlock students’ potential. Curriculum Adminislrator, 35(10). (retrieved from EBSCOHOST Research Databases).
Solomon, G., (2003). Project-base Leaming: A primer. Technology and Leaming, 23(6). (retrieved from EBSCO HOŞT research database).
Somuncuoğlu, Y. & Yıldırım, A., (1999). Relationships between achievement goal orientations and use of leaming strategies. Journal o f Educational Research, §2(5), 267-278.
Şumuer, E., Kursun, E. & Cagiltay, K., (2006). Competencies for instructional design and technology professionals. Instructional Systems Technology 6*^ Annual Conference, lndiana University, USA. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~gisl/conf06/ index.html in April 2006
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B., (1990). Rapid prototyping: An altemative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 3#(1), 31-44.
Victorsson, A Z. & Ritzen, S., (3005). Project competence in producl development. Research in Engineering Design, 15, 193-200. Wideman, R.M., (2002). Project teamwork, personality profiles and
the population at large: Do we have enough of the right kind of people. FPMI, ARW Services, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retreived from hlln://www.maxwideman.com/Dapers/nrofiles/nrofiles.ndf in March 2006.
Wideman, R.M., (2003). Software development and linearity (Or, why some project management methodologies don’t work). Hyderabad, in Projects & Profits Special İssue, March 2003. Retreived from http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/linearity/linearity2.pdf in
March, 2006.
Woolfolk, A., (2004). Educational psychology (9*^ ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education İne.
Geliş 21 Şubat 2(X)5 inceleme 17 Şubat 2(X)6 Düzeltme 07 Mart 2006 Kabul 13 Haziran 2(X)6
